Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 23:05, 23 December 2024

Lhasa Tibetan
བོད་སྐད་
Native to	Lhasa
Region	Tibet Autonomous Region, Ü-Tsang
Native speakers	(1.2 million cited 1990 census)
Language family	Sino-Tibetan Tibeto-Burman Tibeto-Kanauri (?) Bodish Tibetic Central Tibetan Lhasa Tibetan
Early forms	Old Tibetan Classical Tibetan
Writing system	Tibetan script Tibetan Braille
Official status
Official language in	China Tibet Autonomous Region
Regulated by	Committee for the Standardisation of the Tibetan Language
Language codes
ISO 639-1	bo
ISO 639-2	tib (B) bod (T)
ISO 639-3	bod
Glottolog	tibe1272
Linguasphere	70-AAA-ac
This article contains IPA phonetic symbols. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of Unicode characters. For an introductory guide on IPA symbols, see Help:IPA.

Lhasa Tibetan (Tibetan: ལྷ་སའི་སྐད་, Wylie: Lha-sa'i skad, THL: Lhaséké, ZYPY: Lasägä) or Standard Tibetan (Tibetan: བོད་སྐད་, Wylie: Bod skad, THL: Böké, ZYPY: Pögä, IPA: [pʰø̀k˭ɛʔ], or Tibetan: བོད་ཡིག་, Wylie: Bod yig, THL: Böyik, ZYPY: Pöyig) is the Tibetan dialect spoken by educated people of Lhasa, the capital of the Tibetan Autonomous Region. It is an official language of the Tibet Autonomous Region.

In the traditional "three-branched" classification of the Tibetic languages, the Lhasa dialect belongs to the Central Tibetan branch (the other two being Khams Tibetan and Amdo Tibetan). In terms of mutual intelligibility, speakers of Khams Tibetan are able to communicate at a basic level with Lhasa Tibetan, while Amdo speakers cannot. Both Lhasa Tibetan and Khams Tibetan evolved to become tonal and do not preserve the word-initial consonant clusters, which makes them very far from Classical Tibetan, especially when compared to the more conservative Amdo Tibetan.

Registers

Like many languages, Lhasa Tibetan has a variety of language registers:

• ཕལ་སྐད (Wylie: phal skad, literally "demotic language"): the vernacular speech.
• ཞེ་ས (Wylie: zhe sa, "honorifics or deference, courtesy"): the formal spoken style, particularly prominent in Lhasa.
• ཡིག་སྐད (Wylie: yig skad, literally "letters language" or "literary language"): the written literary style; may include ཆོས་སྐད chos skad below.
• ཆོས་སྐད (Wylie: chos skad, literally "doctrine language" or "religious language"): the literary style in which the scriptures and other classical works are written.

Grammar

Syntax and word order

Tibetan is an ergative language, with what can loosely be termed subject–object–verb (SOV) word order. Grammatical constituents broadly have head-final word order:

• adjectives generally follow nouns in Tibetan, unless the two are linked by a genitive particle
• objects and adverbs precede the verb, as do adjectives in copular clauses
• a noun marked with the genitive case precedes the noun which it modifies
• demonstratives and numerals follow the noun they modify.

Nouns and pronouns

Tibetan nouns do not possess grammatical gender, although this may be marked lexically, nor do they inflect for number. However, definite human nouns may take a plural marker ཚོ <tsho>.

Tibetan has been described as having six cases: absolutive, agentive, genitive, ablative, associative and oblique. These are generally marked by particles, which are attached to entire noun phrases, rather than individual nouns. These suffixes may vary in form based on the final sound of the root.

Personal pronouns are inflected for number, showing singular, dual and plural forms. They can have between one and three registers.

The Standard Tibetan language distinguishes three levels of demonstrative: proximal འདི <'di> "this", medial དེ <de> "that", and distal ཕ་གི <pha-gi> "that over there (yonder)". These can also take case suffixes.

Verbs

Verbs in Tibetan always come at the end of the clause. Verbs do not show agreement in person, number or gender in Tibetan. There is also no voice distinction between active and passive; Tibetan verbs are neutral with regard to voice.

Tibetan verbs can be divided into classes based on volition and valency. The volition of the verb has a major effect on its morphology and syntax. Volitional verbs have imperative forms, whilst non-volitional verbs do not: compare ལྟོས་ཤིག <ltos shig> "Look!" with the non-existent *མཐོང་ཤིག <mthong shig> "*See!". Additionally, only volitional verbs can take the egophoric copula ཡིན <yin>.

Verbs in Tibetan can be split into monovalent and divalent verbs; some may also act as both, such as ཆག <chag> "break". This interacts with the volition of the verb to condition which nouns take the ergative case and which must take the absolutive, remaining unmarked. Nonetheless, distinction in transitivity is orthogonal to volition; both the volitional and non-volitional classes contain transitive as well as intransitive verbs.

The aspect of the verb affects which verbal suffixes and which final auxiliary copulae are attached. Morphologically, verbs in the unaccomplished aspect are marked by the suffix གི <gi> or its other forms, identical to the genitive case for nouns, whereas accomplished aspect verbs do not use this suffix. Each can be broken down into two subcategories: under the unaccomplished aspect, future and progressive/general; under the accomplished aspect, perfect and aorist or simple perfective.

Evidentiality is a well-known feature of Tibetan verb morphology, gaining much scholarly attention, and contributing substantially to the understanding of evidentiality across languages. The evidentials in Standard Tibetan interact with aspect in a system marked by final copulae, with the following resultant modalities being a feature of Standard Tibetan, as classified by Nicolas Tournadre:

• Assertive
• Allocentric intentional egophoric
• Allocentric intentional egophoric/Imminent danger
• Experiential egophoric
• Habitual/Generic assertive
• Inferential
• Intentional egophoric
• Intentional/Habitual egophoric
• Receptive egophoric
• Testimonial

Numerals

Unlike many other languages of East Asia such as Burmese, Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese, there are no numeral auxiliaries or measure words used in counting in Tibetan. However, words expressive of a collective or integral are often used after the tens, sometimes after a smaller number.

In scientific and astrological works, the numerals, as in Vedic Sanskrit, are expressed by symbolical words.

The written numerals are a variant of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, forming a base-10 positional counting system that is attested early on in Classical Tibetan texts.

Tibetan makes use of a special connector particle for the units above each multiple of ten. Between 100 and 199, the connective དང dang, literally "and", is used after the hundred portion. Above ས་ཡ saya million, the numbers are treated as nouns and thus have their multiples following the word.

The numbers 1, 2, 3 and 10 change spelling when combined with other numerals, reflecting a change in pronunciation in combination.

Ordinal numbers are formed by adding a suffix to the cardinal number, པ (-pa), with the exception of the ordinal number "first", which has its own lexeme, དང་པོ (dang po).

Writing system

Tibetan is written with an Indic script, with a historically conservative orthography that reflects Old Tibetan phonology and helps unify the Tibetan-language area. It is also helpful in reconstructing Proto Sino-Tibetan and Old Chinese.

Wylie transliteration is the most common system of romanization used by Western scholars in rendering written Tibetan using the Latin alphabet (such as employed on much of this page), while linguists tend to use other special transliteration systems of their own. As for transcriptions meant to approximate the pronunciation, Tibetan pinyin is the official romanization system employed by the government of the People's Republic of China, while English language materials use the THL transcription system. Certain names may also retain irregular transcriptions, such as Chomolungma for Mount Everest.

Tibetan orthographic syllable structure is (C₁C₂)C₃(C₄)V(C₅C₆) Not all combinations are licit.

Phonology

The following summarizes the sound system of the dialect of Tibetan spoken in Lhasa, the most influential variety of the spoken language.

The structure of a Lhasa Tibetan syllable is relatively simple; no consonant cluster is allowed and codas are only allowed with a single consonant. Vowels can be either short or long, and long vowels may further be nasalized. Vowel harmony is observed in two syllable words as well as verbs with a finite ending.

Also, tones are contrastive in this language, where at least two tonemes are distinguished. Although the four-tone analysis is favored by linguists in China, DeLancey (2003) suggests that the falling tone and the final or are in contrastive distribution, describing Lhasa Tibetan syllables as either high or low.

Consonants

1. In the low tone, the unaspirated /p, t, ts, ʈ ~ ʈʂ, tɕ, c, k/ are voiced , whereas the aspirated stops and affricates /pʰ, tʰ, tsʰ, ʈʰ ~ ʈʂʰ, tɕ, cʰ, kʰ/ lose some of their aspiration. Thus, in this context, the main distinction between /p, t, ts, ʈ ~ ʈʂ, tɕ, c, k/ and /pʰ, tʰ, tsʰ, ʈʰ ~ ʈʂʰ, tɕʰ, cʰ, kʰ/ is voicing. The dialect of the upper social strata in Lhasa does not use voiced stops and affricates in the low tone.
2. An alveolar trill () is in complementary distribution of the alveolar approximant ; therefore, both are treated as one phoneme.
3. The consonants /m/, /ŋ/, /p/, /r/, /l/, and /k/ may appear in syllable-final positions. The Classical Tibetan final /n/ is still present, but its modern pronunciation is normally realized as a nasalisation of the preceding vowel, rather than as a discrete consonant (see above). However, /k/ is not pronounced in the final position of a word except in very formal speech. Also, syllable-final /r/ and /l/ are often not clearly pronounced but realized as a lengthening of the preceding vowel. The phonemic glottal stop /ʔ/ appears only at the end of words in the place of /s/, /t/, or /k/, which were pronounced in Classical Tibetan but have since been elided. For instance, the word for Tibet itself was Bod in Classical Tibetan but is now pronounced in the Lhasa dialect.

Vowels

The vowels of Lhasa Tibetan have been characterized and described in several different ways, and it continues to be a topic of ongoing research.

Tournadre and Sangda Dorje describe eight vowels in the standard language:

Three additional vowels are sometimes described as significantly distinct: or , which is normally an allophone of /a/; , which is normally an allophone of /o/; and (an unrounded, centralised, mid front vowel), which is normally an allophone of /e/. These sounds normally occur in closed syllables; because Tibetan does not allow geminated consonants, there are cases in which one syllable ends with the same sound as the one following it. The result is that the first is pronounced as an open syllable but retains the vowel typical of a closed syllable. For instance, ཞབས zhabs (foot) is pronounced and པད pad (borrowing from Sanskrit padma, lotus) is pronounced , but the compound word, ཞབས་པད zhabs pad (lotus-foot, government minister) is pronounced . This process can result in minimal pairs involving sounds that are otherwise allophones.

Sources vary on whether the phone (resulting from /e/ in a closed syllable) and the phone (resulting from /a/ through the i-mutation) are distinct or basically identical.

Phonemic vowel length exists in Lhasa Tibetan but in a restricted set of circumstances. Assimilation of Classical Tibetan's suffixes, normally 'i (འི་), at the end of a word produces a long vowel in Lhasa Tibetan; the feature is sometimes omitted in phonetic transcriptions. In normal spoken pronunciation, a lengthening of the vowel is also frequently substituted for the sounds and when they occur at the end of a syllable.

The vowels /i/, /y/, /e/, /ø/, and /ɛ/ each have nasalized forms: /ĩ/, /ỹ/, /ẽ/, /ø̃/, and /ɛ̃/, respectively. These historically result from /in/, /un/, /en/, /on/, /an/, and are reflected in the written language. The vowel quality of /un/, /on/ and /an/ has shifted, since historical /n/, along with all other coronal final consonants, caused a form of umlaut in the Ü/Dbus branch of Central Tibetan. In some unusual cases, the vowels /a/, /u/, and /o/ may also be nasalised.

Tones

The Lhasa dialect is usually described as having two tones: high and low. However, in monosyllabic words, each tone can occur with two distinct contours. The high tone can be pronounced with either a flat or a falling contour, and the low tone can be pronounced with either a flat or rising-falling contour, the latter being a tone that rises to a medium level before falling again. It is normally safe to distinguish only between the two tones because there are very few minimal pairs that differ only because of contour. The difference occurs only in certain words ending in the sounds or ; for instance, the word kham (Tibetan: ཁམ་, "piece") is pronounced with a high flat tone, whereas the word Khams (Tibetan: ཁམས་, "the Kham region") is pronounced with a high falling tone.

In polysyllabic words, tone is not important except in the first syllable. This means that from the point of view of phonological typology, Tibetan could more accurately be described as a pitch-accent language than a true tone language, in the latter of which all syllables in a word can carry their own tone.

Verbal system

The Lhasa Tibetan verbal system distinguishes four tenses and three evidential moods.

The three moods may all occur with all three grammatical persons, though early descriptions associated the personal modal category with European first-person agreement.

Scholarship

In the 18th and 19th centuries several Western linguists arrived in Tibet:

• The Capuchin friars who settled in Lhasa for a quarter of century from 1719:
  • Francesco della Penna, well known from his accurate description of Tibet,
  • Cassian di Macerata sent home materials which were used by the Augustine friar Aug. Antonio Georgi of Rimini (1711–1797) in his Alphabetum Tibetanum (Rome, 1762, 4t0), a ponderous and confused compilation, which may be still referred to, but with great caution.
• The Hungarian Sándor Kőrösi Csoma (1784–1842), who published the first Tibetan–European language dictionary (Classical Tibetan and English in this case) and grammar, Essay Towards a Dictionary, Tibetan and English.
• Heinrich August Jäschke of the Moravian mission which was established in Ladakh in 1857, Tibetan Grammar and A Tibetan–English Dictionary.
• At St Petersburg, Isaac Jacob Schmidt published his Grammatik der tibetischen Sprache in 1839 and his Tibetisch-deutsches Wörterbuch in 1841. His access to Mongolian sources had enabled him to enrich the results of his labours with a certain amount of information unknown to his predecessors. His Tibetische Studien (1851–1868) is a valuable collection of documents and observations.
• In France, P. E. Foucaux published in 1847 a translation from the Rgya tcher rol-pa, the Tibetan version of the Lalita Vistara, and in 1858 a Grammaire thibétaine.
• Ant. Schiefner of St Petersburg in 1849 his series of translations and researches.
• Theos Casimir Bernard, a PhD scholar of religion from Columbia University, explorer and practitioner of Yoga and Tibetan Buddhism, published, after his 1936/37 trip to India and Tibet, A Simplified Grammar of the Literary Tibetan Language, 1946. See the 'Books' section.

Indian indologist and linguist Rahul Sankrityayan wrote a Tibetan grammar in Hindi. Some of his other works on Tibetan were:

1. Tibbati Bal-Siksha, 1933
2. Pathavali (Vols. 1, 2, 3), 1933
3. Tibbati Vyakaran, 1933
4. Tibbat May Budh Dharm, 1948

• Japanese linguist Kitamura Hajime published a grammar and dictionary of Lhasa Tibetan

Contemporary usage

In much of Tibet, primary education is conducted either primarily or entirely in the Tibetan language, and bilingual education is rarely introduced before students reach middle school. However, Chinese is the language of instruction of most Tibetan secondary schools. In April 2020, classroom instruction was switched from Tibetan to Mandarin Chinese in Ngaba, Sichuan. Students who continue on to tertiary education have the option of studying humanistic disciplines in Tibetan at a number of minority colleges in China. This contrasts with Tibetan schools in Dharamsala, India, where the Ministry of Human Resource Development curriculum requires academic subjects to be taught in English from middle school.

In February 2008, Norman Baker, a UK MP, released a statement to mark International Mother Language Day claiming, "The Chinese government are following a deliberate policy of extinguishing all that is Tibetan, including their own language in their own country" and he asserted a right for Tibetans to express themselves "in their mother tongue". However, Tibetologist Elliot Sperling has noted that "within certain limits the PRC does make efforts to accommodate Tibetan cultural expression" and "the cultural activity taking place all over the Tibetan plateau cannot be ignored."

Some scholars also question such claims because most Tibetans continue to reside in rural areas where Chinese is rarely spoken, as opposed to Lhasa and other Tibetan cities where Chinese can often be heard. In the Texas Journal of International Law, Barry Sautman stated that "none of the many recent studies of endangered languages deems Tibetan to be imperiled, and language maintenance among Tibetans contrasts with language loss even in the remote areas of Western states renowned for liberal policies... claims that primary schools in Tibet teach Mandarin are in error. Tibetan was the main language of instruction in 98% of TAR primary schools in 1996; today, Mandarin is introduced in early grades only in urban schools.... Because less than four out of ten TAR Tibetans reach secondary school, primary school matters most for their cultural formation."

Machine translation software and applications

An incomplete list of machine translation software or applications that can translate Tibetan language from/to a variety of other languages.

• 藏译通 – Zangyitong, a mobile app for translating between Tibetan and Chinese.
• 青海弥陀翻译 – A Beta-version WeChat Mini Program that translate between Tibetan language to/from Chinese. (invitation from WeChat users only)
• 腾讯民汉翻译 – A WeChat Mini Program that translate between Tibetan language to/from Chinese.
• THL Tibetan to English Translation Tool – A webpage that annotates Tibetan text various English meanings and translations, with 10+ dictionaries integrated. A downloadable version is also available.
• 中国社科院 藏汉(口语)机器翻译 – A demonstrative website (slow in response) translating Tibetan to Chinese, developed by Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. It works well on Tibetan text from official Chinese News websites.
• Panlex – A multilingual translation website with a few Tibetan words.
• Microsoft Translator – Has an option to Translate Tibetan.
• Google Translate – Whose support for Tibetan is supported.

Example text

From Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Tibetan, written in the Tibetan script:

འགྲོ་

'gro

བ་

ba

མིའི་

mi'i

རིགས་

rigs

རྒྱུད་

rgyud

ཡོངས་

yongs

ལ་

la

སྐྱེས་

skyes

ཙམ་

tsam

ཉིད་

nyid

ནས་

nas

ཆེ་

che

མཐོངས་

mthongs

དང༌།

dang

ཐོབ་

thob

ཐངགི་

thangagi

རང་

rang

དབང་

dbang

འདྲ་

'dra

མཉམ་

mnyam

དུ་

du

ཡོད་

yod

ལ།

la

ཁོང་

khong

ཚོར་

tshor

རང་

rang

བྱུང་

byung

གི་

gi

བློ་

blo

རྩལ་

rtsal

དང་

dang

བསམ་

bsam

ཚུལ་

tshul

བཟང་

bzang

པོ་

po

འདོན་

'don

པའི་

pa'i

འོས་

'os

བབས་

babs

ཀྱང་

kyang

ཡོད།

yod

དེ་

de

བཞིན་

bzhin

ཕན་

phan

ཚུན་

tshun

གཅིག་

gcig

གིས་

gis

གཅིག་

gcig

ལ་

la

བུ་

bu

སྤུན་

spun

གྱི་

gyi

འདུ་

'du

ཤེས་

shes

འཛིན་

'dzin

པའི་

pa'i

བྱ་

bya

སྤྱོད་

spyod

ཀྱང་

kyang

ལག་

lag

ལེན་

len

བསྟར་

bstar

དགོས་

dgos

པ་

pa

ཡིན༎

yin

འགྲོ་ བ་ མིའི་ རིགས་ རྒྱུད་ ཡོངས་ ལ་ སྐྱེས་ ཙམ་ ཉིད་ ནས་ ཆེ་ མཐོངས་ དང༌། ཐོབ་ ཐངགི་ རང་ དབང་ འདྲ་ མཉམ་ དུ་ ཡོད་ ལ། ཁོང་ ཚོར་ རང་ བྱུང་ གི་ བློ་ རྩལ་ དང་ བསམ་ ཚུལ་ བཟང་ པོ་ འདོན་ པའི་ འོས་ བབས་ ཀྱང་ ཡོད། དེ་ བཞིན་ ཕན་ ཚུན་ གཅིག་ གིས་ གཅིག་ ལ་ བུ་ སྤུན་ གྱི་ འདུ་ ཤེས་ འཛིན་ པའི་ བྱ་ སྤྱོད་ ཀྱང་ ལག་ ལེན་ བསྟར་ དགོས་ པ་ ཡིན༎

'gro ba mi'i rigs rgyud yongs la skyes tsam nyid nas che mthongs dang thob thangagi rang dbang 'dra mnyam du yod la khong tshor rang byung gi blo rtsal dang bsam tshul bzang po 'don pa'i 'os babs kyang yod de bzhin phan tshun gcig gis gcig la bu spun gyi 'du shes 'dzin pa'i bya spyod kyang lag len bstar dgos pa yin

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

See also

• Central Tibetan
• Amdo Tibetan
• Khams Tibetan
• Languages of Bhutan

Notes

1. The name "Lhasa Tibetan" is the preferred name, as in Chapter 19: Lhasa Tibetan, The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 2nd edition (2017), edited by Graham Thurgood and Randy J. LaPolla.

1. Tibetan: བོད་ཡིག་བརྡ་ཚད་ལྡན་དུ་སྒྱུར་བའི་ལས་དོན་ཨུ་ཡོན་ལྷན་ཁང་གིས་བསྒྲིགས་, Wylie: bod yig brda tshad ldan du sgyur ba'i las don u yon lhan khang gis bsgrigs; Chinese: 藏语术语标准化工作委员会

References

1. Lhasa Tibetan at Ethnologue (18th ed., 2015) (subscription required)
2. DeLancey, Scott (2017). "Chapter 19: Lhasa Tibetan". In Graham Thurgood and Randy J. LaPolla (ed.). The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 2nd edition. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-367-57045-3.
3. "Fifty Years of Democratic Reform in Tibet". Official Chinese government site. 2009-03-02. Archived from the original on 2015-12-08. Retrieved 2010-10-16.
4. ^ Gelek, Konchok (2017). "Variation, contact, and change in language: Varieties in Yul shul (northern Khams)". International Journal of the Sociology of Language (245): 91-92.
5. Makley, Charlene; Dede, Keith; Hua, Kan; Wang, Qingshan (1999). "The Amdo Dialect of Labrang" (PDF). Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. 22 (1): 101. doi:10.32655/LTBA.22.1.05. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-05.
6. Reynolds, Jermay J. (2012). Language variation and change in an Amdo Tibetan village: Gender, education and resistance (PDF) (PhD thesis). Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University. p. 19-21. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-08-12.
7. Kellner, Birgit (1 January 2018). "Vernacular Literacy in Tibet: Present Debates and Historical Beginnings". Anfangsgeschichten / Origin Stories. 31: 381–402. doi:10.30965/9783846763469_017. ISBN 978-3-8467-6346-9. Archived from the original on 16 June 2022. Retrieved 26 April 2022.
8. ^ Waddell & de_Lacouperie 1911, p. 919.
9. Tournadre, Nicolas. "Features: Show: Verbs and Verb Phrases". subjects.kmaps.virginia.edu. Archived from the original on 5 May 2023. Retrieved 5 May 2023.
10. ^ Tournardre, Nicolas (Spring 1991). "The rhetorical use of the Tibetan ergative" (PDF). Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. 14 (1): 93–107. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 May 2023. Retrieved 5 May 2023.
11. DeLancey, Scott (1985). "Lhasa Tibetan Evidentials and the Semantics of Causation". Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Archived from the original on 12 May 2023. Retrieved 12 May 2023.
12. Hill, Nathan W.; Gawne, Lauren (24 April 2017). "1 The contribution of Tibetan languages to the study of evidentiality". Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages: 1–38. doi:10.1515/9783110473742-001. ISBN 978-3-11-047374-2. Archived from the original on 12 May 2023. Retrieved 12 May 2023.
13. Tournadre, Nicolas. "Features: Show: Table: The Main Auxiliaries". subjects.kmaps.virginia.edu. Archived from the original on 5 May 2023. Retrieved 5 May 2023.
14. ^ Waddell & de_Lacouperie 1911, p. 920.
15. ^ Tournadre & Dorje 2003, pp. 131–134.
16. lywa (2015-04-02). "Tibetan Numbers". www.lamayeshe.com. Archived from the original on 2020-07-03. Retrieved 2020-06-30.
17. Kiaer, J. (2020). Delicious Words: East Asian Food Words in English. Routledge Studies in East Asian Translation. Taylor & Francis. p. 34. ISBN 978-1-000-07934-0. Retrieved 2024-03-11.
18. Germano, David; Tournadre, Nicolas (2003). "THL Simplified Phonetic Transcription of Standard Tibetan". The Tibetan and Himalayan library. Archived from the original on December 24, 2022. Retrieved Dec 24, 2022.
19. Droma, Nyima; Bartee, Ellen (2000). A beginning textbook of Lhasa Tibetan. National Press for Tibetan Studies. pp. 9–17.
20. Lim 2018, p. 12.
21. Denwood 1999, p. 75.
22. Denwood 1999, p. 71.
23. ^ DeLancey 2003, p. 272.
24. Chang & Chang 1968.
25. DeLancey 2003, p. 271.
26. Lim 2018, p. 28.
27. Lim 2018, p. 34.
28. Gong, Xun (2020). "How many vowels are there in Lhasa Tibetan?". Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. 43 (2). John Benjamins: 225–254. doi:10.1075/ltba.19004.gon. ISSN 0731-3500.
29. Tournadre & Dorje 2003, p. 35.
30. Tournadre & Dorje 2003, p. 55.
31. Tournadre & Dorje 2003, p. 56.
32. Strazny, P. (2013). Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Taylor & Francis. p. 1105. ISBN 978-1-135-45522-4. Retrieved 2024-05-12.
33. Hill, Nathan W. (2013). "ḥdug as a testimonial marker in Classical and Old Tibetan". Himalayan Linguistics. 12 (1): 2. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-11.
34. Hill, Nathan W. (2013). "Contextual semantics of 'Lhasa' Tibetan evidentials". SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics. 10 (3): 47–54. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-11.
35. ^ Waddell & de_Lacouperie 1911, p. 920, note 1.
36. ^ Waddell & de_Lacouperie 1911, p. 920, note 2.
37. Lobe Socktsang; Richard Finney. (9 April 2020). "Classroom Instruction Switch From Tibetan to Chinese in Ngaba Sparks Worry, Anger". Radio Free Asia. Translated by Dorjee Damdul. Archived from the original on 12 April 2020. Retrieved 12 April 2020.
38. Postiglione, Gerard; Jiao, Ben; Gyatso, Sonam (March 2005). "Education in Rural Tibet: Development, Problems and Adaptations". China: An International Journal. 3 (1): 1–23. doi:10.1142/S0219747205000026.
39. Maslak, Mary Ann (February 2008). "School as a site of Tibetan ethnic identity construction in India? Results from a content analysis of textbooks and Delphi study of teachers' perspectives". China: An International Journal. 60 (1): 85–106. doi:10.1080/00131910701794671.
40. "Report reveals determined Chinese assault on Tibetan language" (Press release). Free Tibet. 21 February 2008. Archived from the original on 25 July 2012. Retrieved 7 February 2010.
41. Sperling, Elliot (2000). "Exile and Dissent: The Historical and Cultural Context". In Harris, Melissa; Jones, Sydney (eds.). Tibet Since 1950: Silence, Prison, or Exile. pp. 31–36.
42. Sautman, Barry (2003). "Cultural Genocide and Tibet". Texas Journal of International Law. 38 (2): 173–246.
43. "藏语翻译软件应用"藏译通"上线-新华网". Xinhuanet.com. Archived from the original on November 27, 2019. Retrieved 2020-01-17.
44. "腾讯推出民汉翻译小程序". New.qq.com. 2019-04-30. Archived from the original on 2020-01-16. Retrieved 2020-01-17.
45. "The Tibetan and Himalayan Library". Thlib.org. Archived from the original on 2020-01-21. Retrieved 2020-01-17.
46. "The Tibetan and Himalayan Library". Thlib.org. Archived from the original on 2020-01-14. Retrieved 2020-01-17.
47. "藏语自然语言处理展示台". Tibetan.iea.cass.cn:8081. Archived from the original on 2020-01-21. Retrieved 2020-01-17.
48. "PanLex Translator". Translate.panlex.org. Archived from the original on 2019-08-29. Retrieved 2020-01-17.
49. "110 new languages are coming to Google Translate". Google. 2024-06-27. Retrieved 2024-06-29.
50. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Tibetan". United Nations.

Further reading

• Bernard, Theos C. (1946). A Simplified Grammar of the Literary Tibetan Language. Santa Barbara, CA: Tibetan Text Society.
• Chang, Kun; Chang, Betty Shefts (1968). "Vowel harmony in spoken Lhasa Tibetan". Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology (BIHP). 40: 53–124.
• Das, Sarat Chandra (1902). Tibetan–English Dictionary (with Sanskrit Synonyms). Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Book Depot. ISBN 978-81-86142-82-0.
  • Das, Sarat Chandra (2004). Tibetan-English dictionary. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 81-208-1713-3.
• DeLancey, Scott (2003). "Lhasa Tibetan". The Sino-Tibetan Languages. London: Routledge. pp. 270–288.
• Denwood, Philip (1999). Tibetan. London Oriental and African Language Library. Vol. 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:10.1075/loall.3. ISBN 978-90-272-3803-0. ISSN 1382-3485.
• Francis, Norbert (March 2018). "Review of 'Becoming Bilingual in School and Home in Tibetan Areas of China: Stories of Struggle'". China Review International. 25 (1): 48–53. doi:10.1353/cri.2018.0012. lingbuzz/005092.
• Hahn, Michael (July 2008). "Foundational Questions of Tibetan Morphology". The Tibet Journal. 33 (2): 3–19.
• Hodge, Stephen (2003). An Introduction to Classical Tibetan. Orchid Press. ISBN 974-524-039-7.
• Jäschke, Heinrich August (2004) . A short practical grammar of the Tibetan language, with special reference to the spoken dialects. London: Hardinge Simpole. ISBN 1-84382-077-3. " ... contains a facsimile of the original publication in manuscript, the first printed version of 1883, and the later Addenda published with the Third Edition."—P. of cover.
• Jäschke, Heinrich August (1866). Romanized Tibetan and English dictionary. Kye-Lang. Retrieved 2011-06-30.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Jäschke, Heinrich August (1881). A Tibetan–English dictionary, with special reference to the prevailing dialects: To which is added an English-Tibetan vocabulary. London: Unger Brothers (T. Grimm).
• Jäschke, Heinrich August (1883). Heinrich Wenzel (ed.). Tibetan grammar. Trübner's collection of simplified grammars. Vol. 7 (2nd ed.). London: Trübner & co.
• Kopp, Teresa Kunkel (1998). Verbalizers in Lhasa Tibetan (PhD thesis). Arlington: University of Texas.
• Lim, Keh Sheng (2018). Tonal and Intonational Phonology of Lhasa Tibetan (Ph.D. thesis). University of Ottawa.
• Naga, Sangye Tandar (2010). Vitali, Roberto (ed.). "Some Reflections on the Mysterious Nature of Tibetan Language". The Tibet Journal. 34–35 (3-2: The Earth Ox Papers): 561–566. JSTOR 43302083.
• Sandberg, Graham (1894). Hand-book of colloquial Tibetan: A practical guide to the language of Central Tibet. Calcutta: Thacker, Spink & Co.
• Tournadre, Nicolas; Dorje, Sangda (2003). Manual of Standard Tibetan. New York: Snow Lion Publications. ISBN 1-55939-189-8.
• Waddell, Lawrence Austine; de Lacouperie, Albert Terrien (1911). "Tibet § Language" . In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 12 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 919–921.

External links

• Translations of Tibetan texts, Tibetan language courses & publications by Erick Tsiknopoulos and the Trikāya Translation Committee.

v t e Sino-Tibetan branches
Western Himalayas (Himachal, Uttarakhand, Nepal, Sikkim)	West Himalayish Tamangic Newaric Newar Baram–Thangmi Kiranti Dhimalish Dhimal Toto Lhokpu Lepcha Greater Magaric Magaric Magar Kham Chepangic Chepang Bhujel Raji–Raute Dura–Tandrange
Eastern Himalayas (Tibet, Bhutan, Arunachal)	Bodish Tibetic East Bodish Tshangla Basum Nam? Gongduk ʼOle Tani Chamdo
Myanmar and Indo- Burmese border	Karbi Kuki-Chin Mruic Mru Hkongso Pyu Taman "Naga" Ao Angami–Pochuri Meitei Tangkhulic Zeme Sal Boro–Garo Konyak Jingpho–Luish
East and Southeast Asia	Sinitic Bai Tujia Nungish Karenic Gong Kathu Cai–Long Caijia Longjia Luren Burmo-Qiangic Qiangic Gyalrongic Ersuic Naic Lolo-Burmese Mondzish Burmish Loloish
Dubious (possible isolates) (Arunachal)	Hrusish Hruso Mijiic Kho-Bwa Puroik Miju–Meyor Songlin Greater Siangic Siangic Koro Milang Idu–Taraon
Proposed groupings	Central Tibeto-Burman Kuki-Chin–Naga Macro-Bai Mahakiranti Rung Tibeto-Burman Tibeto-Kanauri
Proto-languages	Proto-Sino-Tibetan Proto-Tibeto-Burman Proto-Loloish Proto-Karenic Proto-Min Proto-Hakka
Italics indicates single languages that are also considered to be separate branches.